# The unfortunate decline of smoking culture even in England



## tfar (Dec 27, 2007)

The author of this nice article mourns the dwindling culture of smoking and ever more restrictive legislation. It goes hand in hand with another thread here asking about a possible production stop on certain Dunhill tabaks.

A good read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday/story/0,,2231357,00.html

*Christmas cigars, Balkan Sobranie and the last days of tobacco*

The atmosphere of a golden age clings to Edward S Sahakian's shop in St James's

 *Ian Jack
Saturday December 22, 2007
The Guardian*

 In Britain, snorting cocaine is now a far more easily taken pleasure than smoking tobacco and it is surprising to remember that until late in the last century I used to buy my father cigars for Christmas. There are now perhaps only half a dozen tobacconists in London - proper tobacconists, that is, stocked with more than Silk Cut and throwaway lighters. Holborn has one, and there's another in Mount Street, Mayfair, and Smith's snuff shop is still open for business in the Charing Cross Road. In other British cities they have been wiped out completely. What you might call the remaining concentration of London tobacconists - two shops out of three or four times as many 20 years ago - lies in St James's, that little territory between Piccadilly and The Mall. The Dunhill store, which to the affluent smoker in far-flung Hong Kong or Buenos Aires was once a place of pilgrimage, now sells everything but tobacco, perhaps even sideboards. "No, we don't do tobacco for more than three years now," said the Eastern European assistant at the door. "You must try that place across the street."

I walked to Davidoff, on the corner of Jermyn and St James's streets, wondering about the ritual of Christmas cigar-smoking. What brand had I given Dad? Perhaps Wills' Whiffs? Schimmelpennincks certainly - not fat cigars but thin Dutch cheroots (a cheroot has both ends clipped) that came in long packets of five. And then, when I began to earn more, actual cigars in those wooden boxes sealed with old-fashioned certificates and stamps that you had to slit open with a knife. Did my father, a pipe-smoker, even like cigars? It used to be said of Harold Wilson that in private he was a serious cigar smoker who smoked a pipe only for public effect, pipes suggesting reliability, but I suspect that in Dad it was the other way around, that he smoked his Christmas cigars because for a day or two it suggested an equally false recklessness and luxury.At Davidoff, I sat in an armchair and looked around the shop as I waited for the owner, Mr Edward S Sahakian. Smoking, like the surgery that often follows it, has spawned a whole array of instruments: pipes, pipe-cleaners, pipe-racks, pipe-knives, spills to be lit from open fires, cigar-cutters, cigar-boxes, humidors, ashtrays. The effect at Davidoff is rather like a museum of vanishing pleasure, with a tub of long-handled shoe horns also on display as a sort of memento mori, a reminder that smoking makes breath shorter and arteries harder so that in the end getting a shoe on is a feat of bending and straining accompanied possibly by regret about so many cigars. You never think about these things until you are 60, when suddenly you do, but Mr Sahakian, who must be about that age, bore no hint of this as he moved quickly between customers, shaking hands, recommending this cigar over that, telling a man with a broken Cartier lighter that he would have to take it back to Cartier.
"Cartier! They're crap aren't they, my dear fellow?" said the man, who wore his long coat open with a woollen scarf knotted at the neck - if a uniform exists in St James's, this is it. The scarf is usually red.
"Ah, but you should have bought a Davidoff," said Mr Sahakian, who, with his brownish suit and smooth domed head, looks rather like a neat cigar himself. His lapel had a badge promoting National Smoking Day.
How was trade? Trade was changing, said Mr Sahakian. Once the main market was men in their 50s, now it was younger people who bought fewer but pricier. Still, the sheer difficulty of smoking - or at least of smoking somewhere warm - presented very large obstacles. Inside Davidoff, for example, it is possible to smoke a cigar but not a cigarette or a pipe. The reason is a clause in the law that allows smokers to "sample" from an individual example.
Sealed pipe-tobacco tins don't allow this. The pipe-smoker is confined to the wild outdoors, choosing from a rapidly shrinking range of brands and often asking at the counter, like elderly madmen in pursuit of the dodo, for the long extinct. "Baby's Bottom, Three Nuns, Lloyd's Bondsman, even Balkan Sobranie ... all gone." I asked about a Dunhill brand called Early Morning Pipe, which had the most beautiful tin, light blue shot through with the yellow rays of a rising sun, a brilliant red cockerel in the foreground. "Finished. A gentleman came in this week and said he would take every tin we had. He took the last 25 tins."
St James's other tobaccanist, Fox's, still has quaint old statues of smoking Red Indians at the door but when I arrived a man (long Crombie coat, red scarf) was being chucked out for lighting a cigar (not sampled but bought) on the premises. There were still a few tins of Dunhill's 'The Royal Yacht' and I thought I should have one as a souvenir, until I discovered that the legend SMOKING KILLS, obscuring half the Edwardian design, was part of the tin and unpeelable. I asked about Christmas Mixture and Early Morning Pipe. "Gone, gone, gone, gone. Finished. All over," shouted the tobacconist as if he was bitterly remembering the destruction of a golden age, or tolling the end of one.
I like this bit of London, partly because the atmosphere of a golden age still clings to it. Eating welsh rarebit at Fortnum's, I heard someone say "frightfully". Up and down Jermyn Street there are all those shirt and suit shops - Hilditch & Key, Turnbull & Asser, Hawes & Curtis - whose names recall partnerships of young men with needles and thread, or maybe one had the money and the other the skill. In these shops, assistants call useable handkerchiefs "nose-blowers" as opposed to the decorative kind stuffed into jacket top pockets; and people still buy shooting sticks, port decanters, hip-flasks, and marine paintings by Montague Dawson.
At Bates, I asked about a hat, something in felt like a Borsalino. One was too rigid. Had they anything softer? Yes. But I thought the softer was too light. "That would be the case, sir. Softer means lighter." As always in shops such as this, you sense the looming danger of being found out as a parvenu by superior Jeeveses who, when they close the shop and take their manners off, must catch the bus home to a small-waged domesticity, which the next day, helping the rich out of their money, they somehow forget to resent.
None of this was unexpected. The surprise was that the streets were so English, that with four shopping days to Christmas there were so few Americans, Europeans, Indians and Japanese. An over-valued pound is blamed, just as online shopping, falling house prices and the predicted meaner City bonuses are blamed for a fall in sales in everything other than luxury foods. And this was visibly so: crowds in Fortnum's buying foie gras "gift sets" for £60 and, across Piccadilly, empty jewellery boutiques in the Burlington Arcade. A Christmas that sells fewer goods than the previous Christmas is a bad Christmas; which is why, in a cheerful Boxing Day walnut shell, industrial capitalism will eventually destroy itself, and us.
It was another cold bright day in a week of them. The weather is never a symptom of economic mood; who in London last week walked under the blue skies and denied anxiety? At Claridges in the evening, I saw another man in scarf and long coat leave the bar and take a lighter and old cigar from his pocket, saying to his friends, "I need my fix."




Till


----------



## Thillium (Jan 14, 2008)

...


----------



## IrishCorona (Mar 7, 2007)

Thanks for sharing.....

Twas actually a damn good read IMVHO. I'd elaborate but it would just be depressing.


----------



## tfar (Dec 27, 2007)

Too depressing, indeed. I found the info on certain Dunhill tobaccoes disappearing from the shelves very interesting in relation to the other thread you have surely read.

I went to two cigar/pipe shops here in Austin and they still had the tobacooes mentioned in the article except perhaps the Royal Yacht.

It is really not just about restrictive legislature but about culture; a culture of tolerance as much as a culture of being able to enjoy leisure time and perhaps come up with a creative idea or at least restore your force so you can add to the industrial culture the author mentions.

You would think that the English of all folks still have it. Perhaps the clean Switzerland is now the country with the most pleasure friendly legislation. There are many restaurants where one can smoke inside or who at least have a smoking section and a lot of upscale establishments do sell very fine cigars. I don't know of hotel lobbies there where one is not allowed to smoke a cigar for example. Lighting up in a street cafe where tables are close indeed and drinking a fine whisky publicly is not going to attract any frowns in my experience.

Two or three years ago I went to Art Basel as I do every year. It is the world's most important modern art fair. You can literally buy a Picasso or Warhol off the wall if you can write a check with seven or more figures (I cannot). People were walking around inside the conference center with big Cuban cigars and Champagne glasses. They could have easily poked a cigar into an expensive canvas or spilled their champagne over a priceless sculpture. The cigars were actually given for free to the VIPs in the lounge thanks to a Habanos S.A. booth. I picked up three, nice treat.

In 2007 the cigar booth was still there but no one was smoking inside anymore.

Till


----------



## bolio (Sep 19, 2007)

man..this sucks..very depressing indeed..


----------



## Mad Hatter (Apr 8, 2007)

Nice read. I really enjoyed it. Here's to the brighter future where people return to simpler pleasures.


----------



## Some Dark Holler (Oct 29, 2007)

It just seems so bleak. I have to have some hope for the future though, being a young pipe smoker. I know we are few, but I think young men are finding pleasure in fine tobacco more and more these days.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

excellent piece of work on a sad subject.

here soon, i fully intend to STOCK UP on all my favorites.


----------



## ChronoB (Nov 4, 2007)

tfar said:


> It is really not just about restrictive legislature but about culture; a culture of tolerance as much as a culture of being able to enjoy leisure time and perhaps come up with a creative idea or at least restore your force so you can add to the industrial culture the author mentions.
> 
> You would think that the English of all folks still have it.


With all due respect to the English (and they do deserve a lot), this doesn't suprise me. Don't forget that Britain is a socialist country (i.e. a nanny state). There is no Bill of Rights protecting their freedoms. Without that, you'll have fewer and fewer of them if you don't clamor for them. They've lost the fierce, independent spirit that defined them prior to and up to WW II. Oddly, what the British should have done is happening in Germany:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2243763,00.html

Luckily for brothers of the leaf in Britain there is the internet. What you can't buy at a shop you can order from anywhere.


----------



## JacksonCognac (Nov 12, 2007)

It sucks for sure and all of the recent laws are really pissing me off. However, I know there are some younger guys (including myself) who enjoy smoking so hopefully we can keep the torch lit (or pipe for that matter :bn).


----------



## tfar (Dec 27, 2007)

ChronoB said:


> With all due respect to the English (and they do deserve a lot), this doesn't suprise me. Don't forget that Britain is a socialist country (i.e. a nanny state). There is no Bill of Rights protecting their freedoms. Without that, you'll have fewer and fewer of them if you don't clamor for them. They've lost the fierce, independent spirit that defined them prior to and up to WW II. Oddly, what the British should have done is happening in Germany:
> 
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2243763,00.html
> 
> Luckily for brothers of the leaf in Britain there is the internet. What you can't buy at a shop you can order from anywhere.


Great story, too. Thanks for posting. It comes from the same source even. Being German myself, I feel I can explain the German stance on this a little bit. First, I didn't know about the nazis passing a smoke ban. That is interesting. Of course, the David star with smoke association is utterly tasteless and got rightfully taken out.

There are two different sides to the German mentality and you have to have lived there to understand them and see that they can actually go together well. Joe Jackson mentions one side of it. That is that Germans have a very doubtful and critical attitude towards authority and restrictive laws. If you look at our history it is easily explained and it is a good thing that we are so critical of authority and of anything that can attack the civil liberties. Most Germans are probably more outraged at the Patriot Act than Americans although it doesn't even concern them (well, at least not as directly). They wonder how Americans can have their civil liberties trampled on by their own leaders and even vote for them again. The quote of a great American president comes to mind...

The other side of the German mentality is best explained in a joke that dates from the pre-unification era. Question: Why are there no revolutions in Germany? Answer: Because if there is a sign 'DON'T STEP ON THE LAWN', the Germans will obey it.

This obedience and discipline paradigm has been changed with the peaceful revolution in the best sense of civil disobedience that allowed East and West Germany to become united again. Still, we do like it if things are done in an orderly fashion and follow certain rules because this simply makes for a more efficient and trouble-free life. BUT tolerance and a much more relaxed stance on the rule "My liberty ends where that of my neighbor begins" are perhaps even more important to a lot of us. The reason for this might be that we have always lived in a much denser environment, very close to one another unlike in America where people have had more room for individual liberties. Your neighbor in Germany is always VERY close. So your liberties wouldn't go very far if your neighbor was an a**hole who said he can smell your smoke in his apartment. And your neighbors liberties wouldn't go very far either because you might complain that him showering at 11pm wakes you up. Thus we had to learn to life together and alongside one another.

The smoking ban in Germany now is part of a new European legislation, and Poland will eventually get it, too. Altogether it is a sad example of how we tend to adopt American cultural "achievements" whether they are good or bad.

For me, walking into a bar without smoke just feels strange. Smoke belongs in a bar just like alcohol. In a restaurant or movie theater I don't mind the smoking ban. Though I must say that in upscale restaurants they should have a bar where you can smoke a good stogie after a meal you might have paid $100 for.

Till


----------



## billhud (Dec 31, 2007)

A similar danger in the US from using on-line source over the ever decreasing B&Ms.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Apr 8, 2007)

tfar said:


> Great story, too. Thanks for posting. It comes from the same source even. Being German myself, I feel I can explain the German stance on this a little bit. First, I didn't know about the nazis passing a smoke ban. That is interesting. Of course, the David star with smoke association is utterly tasteless and got rightfully taken out.
> 
> There are two different sides to the German mentality and you have to have lived there to understand them and see that they can actually go together well. Joe Jackson mentions one side of it. That is that Germans have a very doubtful and critical attitude towards authority and restrictive laws. If you look at our history it is easily explained and it is a good thing that we are so critical of authority and of anything that can attack the civil liberties. Most Germans are probably more outraged at the Patriot Act than Americans although it doesn't even concern them (well, at least not as directly). They wonder how Americans can have their civil liberties trampled on by their own leaders and even vote for them again. The quote of a great American president comes to mind...
> 
> ...


Great informed post Till. A few years ago it was easy to keep up on this sort of thing and see how our cousins in Europe were dealing with issues like tobacco legislation, cross-border relations, etc, but about the time the Patriot Act was passed I lost my access to Canadian and German television news sources. Now all I have is the BBC and IBA, better than nothing I guess, but still a pale comparison.


----------



## Davetopay (Jan 19, 2008)

A sad tale indeed. Makes me think I should spend lunch today at the pub across the way that does still allow smoking. To make it better, no one frowns on even the stinkiest blend in a pipe. Maybe after that I will walk down to the tobacconist and join them for some tv and a smoke in the lounge. Leesburg, VA is still rather "unhostile" to pipe smokers.


----------



## tfar (Dec 27, 2007)

Mad Hatter said:


> Great informed post Till. A few years ago it was easy to keep up on this sort of thing and see how our cousins in Europe were dealing with issues like tobacco legislation, cross-border relations, etc, but about the time the Patriot Act was passed I lost my access to Canadian and German television news sources. Now all I have is the BBC and IBA, better than nothing I guess, but still a pale comparison.


Mad Hatter, I am glad you liked the post. I have an awful tendency for longwinding posts so I am really happy if people even read all my stuff.:tu
You say the Patriot Act had an influence on the availability of German and Canadian TV news sources for you. How so? Did they kill some stations from the satellite? Wait, I actually think there has never really been a satellite over the US to broadcast German TV. I once looked into that and didn't find any possibility of getting German TV here. But Canadian should be possible, and British of course.

If you read German, I can recommend to check out www.tagesschau.de it is the website of the official German state-owned news channel. While it is state-owned the freedom of press is by and large respected and the website is very critical of our own government and those of other countries. There is also hardly any self-censorship. Their infos are clearly divided into what is pure fact and what is comment. They also have video clips from their daily TV broadcasts.

If you understand spoken German check out Deutsche Welle Radio on SW shortwave.

Till


----------



## tfar (Dec 27, 2007)

Forgot to ask. Where does Mad Hatter come from? Is it a saying or proverb or piece of literature or pop culture? There is a nice Elton John song called Mad Hatters, and I have always wondered.

Till


----------



## billhud (Dec 31, 2007)

tfar said:


> Forgot to ask. Where does Mad Hatter come from? Is it a saying or proverb or piece of literature or pop culture? There is a nice Elton John song called Mad Hatters, and I have always wondered.
> 
> Till


Likely from the Hatter in Lewis Carroll's classic work "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".

The mercury used in curing felts caused all sorts of mental problems (speech, vision, psychosis, hallucinations) in long time hatters.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Apr 8, 2007)

The Lewis Carroll character is where I borrowed my name. Friends and acquaintances always say I'm crazy and I still haven't figured out why so I figured the name was fitting

I'll send you a PM on the other questions



billhud said:


> The mercury used in curing felts caused all sorts of mental problems (speech, vision, psychosis, hallucinations) in long time hatters.


Yeah, in Victorian england (maybe even pre-victorian) these hatmakers would get mercury poisoning from long term exposure and were said to have "gone mad" or insane because of their behavior. That is from where all "mad hatter" references come "mad as a hatter" or the Mad Hatter from the novel as well.


----------



## Fried (Jan 19, 2008)

I made a hat once..............


----------



## Bones (Dec 24, 2007)

I just wanted to express my sorrow as I was reading these posts.
I too don't mind smoking bans in movie theatres and such, those are understandable.
But in bars/pubs? That gets me fired up.


----------



## tfar (Dec 27, 2007)

OT: Thanks so much for the Mad Hatters explanation. I am always thrilled when I learn stuff like that. Actually in art (history) we have a similar phenomenon during the 15th to early 20th century. Turpentine, lead and cadmium as well as other heavy metals were often used in paint production and thus painters often suffered from illness related to these substances.

On topic: Yesterday I went for a really nice herf with some great BOTLS at Little Woodrow's just outside of Austin's no-smoking zone. It was really nice to sit there, have a drink and some food and just discuss cigars and all the other things that make the world go around. I didn't have the impression that we were bothering anyone, either.

Till


----------



## Pendaboot (Jan 2, 2008)

This is nothing. First it was alcohol. That ban got repealed but then it was marijuana. We can all agree with that one, can't we? Now it is tobacco and "unhealthy" food is coming up very fast. Just wait until the tobacco bans are more complete, then the alcohol ban will be back. When even one of *us* can say that he is OK with smoking bans in theaters, just not bars, you can see where this comes from. The true purveyor of evil is not the fanatic, it is the "good person" who fails to object when another's rights are withheld, then does not understand when his own are next.

Freedom is uncomfortable, so most Americans are willing to remove everyone else's freedoms, and believes that somehow the slippery slope will stop just short of what *HE* wants.

Sorry guys, Pogo was right. The enemy is *US*. Who are YOU voting for? I'll bet it is an advocate of Schip. That's Clinton, Obama, McCain and Romney. They ALL will make cigars cost ten dollars each. No joke. That's why I own ten thousand cigars, and buy hundreds more each week. Just you wait. It will all be illegal soon enough. I just hope that I am allowed to smoke my cigars, and that once I can no longer afford to buy them I will be able to find a legal place to smoke them.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

Pendaboot said:


> This is nothing. First it was alcohol. That ban got repealed but then it was marijuana. We can all agree with that one, can't we? Now it is tobacco and "unhealthy" food is coming up very fast. Just wait until the tobacco bans are more complete, then the alcohol ban will be back. When even one of *us* can say that he is OK with smoking bans in theaters, just not bars, you can see where this comes from. The true purveyor of evil is not the fanatic, it is the "good person" who fails to object when another's rights are withheld, then does not understand when his own are next.
> 
> IHT - yep, i can agree with this statement. you have the wrong group to preach to here, though.
> 
> ...


my reply is in the quote.
my friendly advice is, "pay attention to where you're posting at, know its culture, try to blend in, or you won't fit in."


----------



## Pendaboot (Jan 2, 2008)

I read every post in this thread, and am sorry if political references crept into what I wrote. It is becoming more than uncomfortable to smoke in public, it is rapidly becoming illegal. This affects pipe smokers as well as cigar smokers.


----------



## billhud (Dec 31, 2007)

Pendaboot said:


> That ban got repealed but then it was marijuana. We can all agree with that one, can't we?


I'll not necessarily agree. You should look at the genesis of making marijuana illegal n the U.S. It's a sad tale.

On top of that you should understand their are federal prisoners serving life sentences for growing marijuana. LIFE sentences?!?!?


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

Pendaboot said:


> It is becoming more than uncomfortable to smoke in public, it is rapidly becoming illegal. This affects pipe smokers as well as cigar smokers.


i agree.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Apr 8, 2007)

I think there are sides of the tobacco issue that people don't even consider. While I don't see anything wrong with cigars and pipe tobacco, or snuff for that matter, smokeless tobacco and especially cigarettes have a huge negative effect on lots of innocent people. Personally I believe a lot of the health effects claimed against tobacco are :BS but what can you say to the economic effects of cigarettes? The links between poverty and smoking aren't debatable in the least. I can't understand why with all the fervor about children's rights and stuff these days that someone hasn't approached smoking bans from this perspective. While the majority of smokers aren't poverty stricken, the majority of poverty stricken adults are smokers. It actually leads me to wonder just how much poverty would actually exist if it weren't for the smoking culture. Case in point: my dad was a chainsmoker of two cartons a week raising a family of 6 and earning $6/hr in the 1980s. "I'm here to tell ya" (to use one of the old man's favorite quotes) we didn't have shit. Cigarettes aren't easy to quit and I know Dad tried several times but when your addiction is offered to you in small inexpensive doses its a real bitch. It seems to me that we pipe and cigars smokers should have the beef with cigarettesmokers too but we're afraid we'll go down with them, and even if we could alienate the cigarette smokers they'll start screaming and pointing fingers at us. My point is that cigarettes are what have given smoking a bad name and unless pipe and cigar smokers go to efforts to distance themselves from cigarette smokers then we'll forever be lumped in the same class with them and there will be no good outcome. The only way to promote our hobby in opposition to their habit is for us to band together, both users and producers and begin an advertising campaign that promotes healthy smoking while directly taking a stance against unhealthy smoking. As popularity grows, so does public awareness and eventually we can have the power to lobby for our interests without joining in with interests that are detrimental to society.


BTW - I just love the people who stand against tobacco who also support in the legalization of drugs....................... 'course they're the same people who advocate for life sentences instead of firing squads.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

Mad Hatter said:


> BTW - I just love the people who stand against tobacco who also support in the legalization of drugs....................... 'course they're the same people who advocate for life sentences instead of firing squads.


excellent points on the first paragraph, one i think of often - distancing ourselves from cig and smokeless users.

the quoted portion, i have been thinking a lot about that as well.

edit: I thought better of what i was going to say, as it would've started a shi*tstorm of ppl argueing over who's to blame for what when it comes to libs/cons or dems/repubs. so, i just won't say it, but i am in total agreement, joe - i was just going to bring up other things they fight for/against which is a total contradiction and makes no sense how they can be FOR one thing and AGAINST another like they are.


----------



## tfar (Dec 27, 2007)

True that cigarette smoke is what has given smoking the bad rep and got us all the smoking bans. But cigar and pipe have always been outlawed even more. There was a time when you could smoke a cigarette on a plane or train but not a pipe or cigar because a lot of people find cigar smoke more offensive.

Many times I get the feeling that those people just need something to bitch about, something to give them some power or the feeling of power over others (based on supposed moral high grounds). So smoking is just the thing.

I do totally acknowledge that smoking or chewing tobacco is not good for our health. For secondhand smoke I am not so sure. I wonder if it is really that bad as they claim. It is also clear that the most damage to the public health is done by cigarette smokers because of their sheer number in smokers and their total tobacco consumption. This is indeed a socio-economic problem. For many poor people smoking is the only little pleasure they can afford and their weakness is used to get them addicted. Often this is then combined with a generally unhealthy life-style.

Cigar smokers especially, but certainly also pipe smokers, probably come more from a higher background in terms of education, job and money. These people will smoke moderately and try not to ruin their health with it (it might ruin us financially though  ).

There is one thing to be said about cigar and pipe smoking as a symbol of sophistication and smoking as culture and then there is smoking as a social and public health problem. If you want to get rid of the public health problem and forbid smoking or make it harder you cannot tell the poor cigarette smokers that they have to stop but continue allowing it for the rich cigar and pipe smokers. This might be a bit simplified but that's what you have to do to get to the essence of the problem.

We will have to retreat and find others ways like pipe clubs and cigar lounges. What is totally unacceptable in my eyes (and I am rather left leaning) is an intrusion into my private sphere. If I cannot smoke on my property or even in my car (there is I think a law in Cali where you cannot smoke with kids in the car) that's when civil disobedience is a good start.

Till


----------



## billhud (Dec 31, 2007)

tfar said:


> Many times I get the feeling that those people just need something to bitch about, ...


I may be a rare dissenting voice here. Non-smokers were right to bitch when they couldn't escape smoke filled public places like restuarants and movie theaters, and it has been shown that business do not suffer when smoking is banned in them.

I smoked cigs for decades but wouldn't frequent smoke filled establishments like stores and restaurants. Even now I don't hang long at tobacco B&Ms as I don't like the stale smoke filled atmosphere. I go in, conduct my business, and leave shortly after.

For non-smokers it is much more of a issue than just needing something to bitch about.


----------



## tfar (Dec 27, 2007)

Perhaps you are right, Bill. But is it more a matter of 'not liking' something or a sincere fear for your life. I can hardly believe that it is a matter of sincere fear. For me just not liking something and whining about it with a health cover-up is a hypocrit attitude that shows self-centeredness and lack of tolerance.

As I said in another post, tolerance is lacking in this country because people don't live very densely (or aren't culturally accustomed to live in dense quarters). There is this vestige of 'I am the king of my ranch' mentality that one hardly found in Europe. Now, of course, Europeans jump on the bandwagon and follow the American cultural example.

As I also said in another post, I can quite agree on restaurants, movie theaters, public transport and even the work place. But bars, 15ft from building entrances and so on ...come on!

Anyway, there is almost no sense in bitching about it the other way around because things are not going to change for that matter. The only thing that would change something is if businesses really lost money due to this. Personally, I do hardly frequent bars anymore to protest this stupid ban. So at least they lose my business.

Till


----------



## tzilt (Nov 20, 2007)

I'm certain that the various smoking bans have something to do with the decline of smoking culture, but isn't it also true that 21st century people are just slightly less connected to their communities and neighbors anyhow? Seems to me that even when I was a kid (20some years ago) people did more neighborly oriented things and nowadays people are more likely to hole up and not interact.


----------



## billhud (Dec 31, 2007)

It really isn't a "health cover-up" either. Anyone who has spent a lot of time with kids living in smoked filled homes and traveling in smoked filled cars knows that. As for no smoking areas and entrances, I fully support them. Non-smokers can usually easily avoid us, excepting if we smoke in public places indoors and entrances to those places.


----------



## billhud (Dec 31, 2007)

tzilt said:


> Seems to me that even when I was a kid (20some years ago) people did more neighborly oriented things and nowadays people are more likely to hole up and not interact.


I've observed that people are often simply much too busy now and allow too much on "their calendars".


----------



## Mad Hatter (Apr 8, 2007)

tzilt said:


> I'm certain that the various smoking bans have something to do with the decline of smoking culture, but isn't it also true that 21st century people are just slightly less connected to their communities and neighbors anyhow? Seems to me that even when I was a kid (20some years ago) people did more neighborly oriented things and nowadays people are more likely to hole up and not interact.


Yep, less likely to be neighborly, less likely to have children, less likely to be or stay married, less likely to live on a one person income. In my neighborhood I stop and talk to the 65 and over crowd, nod to the boomers and do my best to avoid my own and younger generations :r


----------



## Harpo (Oct 11, 2007)

I'm normally a Cigar Forum-dweller, but I had to chime in because as a Londoner this is such an important topic to me. What you see described in the article is my world, the only concentration of places in London to buy fine tobacco. And it's being killed off.

Walking around St James and Jermyn Street, you experience a different pace of life... unrushed, relaxed, wonderful. This is a place where people appreciate the finer things in life, from Cuban cigars to bespoke suits. The unholy shouting mess of Piccadilly Circus is literally the next street along, but the chaos doesn't touch this little oasis. Davidoff is on the corner, the manager always immaculate in his 3-piece suit and fedora hat. Down the street is JJ Fox, where Winston Churchill bought his cigars from and is the oldest B&M in the world. Alfred Dunhill is just a few paces away, their beautiful private locker room next to a gentlemen's barber. It's a truly unique place.

This is my haven, a restaurant and cafe on Jermyn Street called Franco's directly opposite the Davidoff store. Outside under well-heated tables (due to the smoking ban) there is always a constant group of cigar smokers, young and old, rich and poor. I've talked with everyone from Dutch fine art dealers to young guys fresh out of school, all brought together by the love of fine cigars:



















The UK government is killing our culture. We are traditionally a nation of smokers, but our hands are tied behind our backs by ridiculous babysitting political correctness. What breaks my heart is seeing old guys standing in the freezing cold outside a pub, trying to have a quick smoke before hobbling back inside to finish their drink. Is this what we fought wars for? Is this what Churchill envisioned for this country? Is this the peak of the human race, a place where we can live free and enjoy our short lives? It makes me sad.

:BS

(And a final point of note, the article is from a newspaper called The Guardian, and it's possibly _the_ most left-wing newspaper in the country. The fact that even a liberal publication feels like something is wrong says a lot really. )


----------



## Bridges (Jan 6, 2008)

It just makes me sad. On the one hand I can appreciate not being able to smoke in restaurants. But bars that's just absurd. People go in bars to destroy their livers and potentially get STD's and they're worried about a little smoke. Also I thought that more women were picking up smoking than ever before. I heard it from a guest speaker at school. He's a doctor so I think it's true.


----------



## paperairplane (Nov 8, 2007)

Guys, you can't have it both ways. If you agree to a ban in a movie theatre, you have to accept it everywhere else. If you allow a ban on cigarettes, you have to accept the same on pipes and cigars. That is how politics works. 

I smoked cigarettes for years, and I hate them now. I can smell cigarette smoke on a person from a mile away. 

Anyone who wants to debate the ill effects of smoking is in the worst kind of denial.

One side of the aisle will bankrupt us by offering free health care to the poor, lard-o's smoking themselves to death and the other side is growing ever richer from the drug and insurance company's profiteering.

Stock up now and plan on enjoying yourself in your own yard. (Forget the government, the blonde already put a ban on my house...)


----------



## jgros001 (Jun 14, 2005)

I'll keep this semi on topic and tell a story about Scotland (I am not even going to get started on Maryland or the USA). So I was studying abroad in Scotland about 7 years ago and would hang out at this bar....truly just a bar, no food just beer and whisky and pool tables. Everyone smoked in this bar. Then there was another bar up the road, another place that was strictly a bar - no food. This was as I recall men only....never saw a woman there nor did any want to enter this place. I was the youngest by about 30 years but they accepted me since I drank whisky and played chess and talked football. Just a bunch of old men drinking beer and whisky, playing chess and some other game I didn't know and smoking (they also had this awesome trough along the floor of the bar with running water so you didn't have to leave the bar for anything - well maybe something but you wouldn't want to do that at a bar bathroom anyway). I can't even fathom a government coming in and telling these people that they couldn't smoke. It is just not right and a real shame about London and the classic/historic tobacco shops that have in my opinion lost their luster by the smoking ban and asinine rules that they have to abide by because of the ban. Hell anyone who gets into this debate with me will know that I don't care if the economy, the people, or a business owner decides to go smoke free but I do not see the government having a place in this.


----------



## tfar (Dec 27, 2007)

A big thank you to Harpo for chiming in. It is always good to get an insightful statement from someone who is actually "in medias res".

Till


----------



## Thillium (Jan 14, 2008)

No offense to anyone of the political mind set but welcome to the new fad of Liberalism/Democratic idealogs, please hand over your rights as a person and continue on towards 1984.


----------



## billhud (Dec 31, 2007)

Bridges said:


> People go in bars to destroy their livers and potentially get STD's and they're worried about a little smoke.


Not all of us go to a bar to drink to excess and/or to pick up a one night stand. There are many bars catering to crowds not into such.


----------



## Bridges (Jan 6, 2008)

billhud said:


> Not all of us go to a bar to drink to excess and/or to pick up a one night stand. There are many bars catering to crowds not into such.


I know. I guess I phrased that wrong. I think it should be the businesses choice. Government has absolutely no say in it whatsoever. Wasn't the whole smoking ban thing started because workers shouldn't have to work in a smoky atmosphere. If that's the case then they should find a job somewhere else. If I'm looking for a job and I don't like certain aspects about the job then I don't work there. I don't want to step on anybodies toes by saying this. Just let me know if I'm completely out of line or wrong. No worries. It's so hard to talk politics because you have to try to find that one size that fits all but only ends up fitting a few.


----------



## Pendaboot (Jan 2, 2008)

Government sees its job as that of seizing power from the people by any means necessary. They do this by taking power from smaller groups, what they call marginal citizens, meaning those whose life, liberty and pursuit of happiness can be disregarded. 

This is not a political statement, it is an observation that can not be honestly refuted. How, or even whether, to stop this tendency in government is poiltics. I am told that this forum is no place for politics. But the fact that government is on a roll, infringing on our rights as consumers of a legal product every chance they get, is undeniable. If this is not the place to discuss it then repressive government has won another round against us.


----------



## tfar (Dec 27, 2007)

Thillium said:


> No offense to anyone of the political mind set but welcome to the new fad of Liberalism/Democratic idealogs, please hand over your rights as a person and continue on towards 1984.


This is gonna be slightly OT and for educational purpose only. But maybe not since this deals with smoking and England.

No offense either, but smoking bans have been passed in countries when they had a rather conservative (right wing) government, not a liberal government. This, of course, has to be seen on a global level and not on an individual state level. But even California which is decried to be quasi-communist and is among the worst on smoking bans has a Republican governor. Same for many countries and their federal states in Europe. In Germany for example we have the ban since this January (under a strange coalition government). However, some states that are traditionally conservative like Baden-Württemberg (capital Stuttgart) have passed their own ban regulations even earlier. Whereas others, that are traditionally left (like Berlin), are not enforcing it until they absolutely have to.

In terms of 1984, the state Orwell describes is clearly a totalitarian state of fascist creed modeled (in retrospect) more after right-leaning extremes than left-leaning ones. Even though he was as much impressed by what Hitler did as by Stalin's system, and there are more direct allusions to Stalin than to Hitler in the book. Funny enough on the extreme end both sides meet. I say in retrospect because we could see that besides Cuba and Mao's China the other states that used similar methods were on the right spectrum. It doesn't really matter since the methods for mind control and insurance of power are usually the same. It only matters as a historic reference as a link between what you say and what I try to make clear.

The type of state control over the individual, surveillance and propaganda methods portrayed were utopian/futuristic at the time. Under W. they have become reality. It is the left that is fighting this abuse committed under the cloak of "homeland security".

Orwell was wondering whether England would have to be subjected to a "fascist coup d'etat from above or a socialist revolution from below".

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Orwell himself, as most intellectuals (see the current and historic political tendency of university professors and writers), was rather leftist.

Therefore blaming the smoking ban on the political left and then pushing it into the direction of 1984, and implying that that story was also a leftist dystopia is -with all due respect, and I don't even know if any respect is due because it seems you might lack the age to have acquired the necessary literary, historical and political theory erudition - incorrect.

That said, the smoking ban sucks. Read the thread I just posted on a great site with a lot of info to defend yourself against arbitrary health claims. For convenience here is the link:
http://www.minnesotansagainstsmokingbans.com/

Till


----------



## Pendaboot (Jan 2, 2008)

So sorry, but this is not a Right/Left thing. It is a government-overreaching thing. If we couch it in terms of Right/Left we lose half of our support. It is US (smokers) against THEM (self important nanny-state types) and no political party or movement is on our side, unless it is the Libertarians, who are against anything that infringes on our freedoms (but the Libertarians have never garnered mainstream support).

The reason that gun bans are not going into effect is that gun rights people will vote, in a bloc, against anyone who is against 2nd amendment rights. We need to do the same, or we will lose our right to enjoy our hobby, all the while blaming anyone but ourselves.:cb


----------



## tfar (Dec 27, 2007)

I agree the government overreaching thing is not a right/left matter. I hope that was sufficiently clear from my post which I find rather factual and balanced.

I also agree that as smokers at least on this point critically thinking righties and lefties can unite and agree on this issue.

Yet I do maintain my point contradicting or correcting Thillium on his right/left and Orwell statements.

Over and out.

Till


----------



## Harpo (Oct 11, 2007)

tfar said:


> A big thank you to Harpo for chiming in. It is always good to get an insightful statement from someone who is actually "in medias res".
> 
> Till


Hey no problem Till. Just wanted to share the view from my side of the pond. :tu


----------



## Mad Hatter (Apr 8, 2007)

Thillium said:


> No offense to anyone of the political mind set but welcome to the new fad of Liberalism/Democratic idealogs, please hand over your rights as a person and continue on towards 1984.


While I agree that Goldstein is out to get us and destroy our way of life these days, I don't think tobacco figures into the scheme. Perhaps maybe we should look at the anti-smoking wave as a social movement rather than a political movement.


----------



## Thillium (Jan 14, 2008)

Mad Hatter said:


> While I agree that Goldstein is out to get us and destroy our way of life these days, I don't think tobacco figures into the scheme. Perhaps maybe we should look at the anti-smoking wave as a social movement rather than a political movement.


What about seat belt laws? NH is the only state that doesn't have one I believe. Its big government telling us whats right and wrong when most intelligent people know that its right and wrong.


----------



## Thillium (Jan 14, 2008)

tfar said:


> Till


I've read the wikipedia article already about 1984, I was making a joke.


----------



## Thillium (Jan 14, 2008)

Pendaboot said:


> So sorry, but this is not a Right/Left thing. It is a government-overreaching thing. If we couch it in terms of Right/Left we lose half of our support. It is US (smokers) against THEM (self important nanny-state types) and no political party or movement is on our side, unless it is the Libertarians, who are against anything that infringes on our freedoms (but the Libertarians have never garnered mainstream support).
> 
> The reason that gun bans are not going into effect is that gun rights people will vote, in a bloc, against anyone who is against 2nd amendment rights. We need to do the same, or we will lose our right to enjoy our hobby, all the while blaming anyone but ourselves.:cb


I was a bit pissed off about Romney dropping out last night when I said that comment


----------



## Mad Hatter (Apr 8, 2007)

Thillium said:


> What about seat belt laws? NH is the only state that doesn't have one I believe. Its big government telling us whats right and wrong when most intelligent people know that its right and wrong.


Have you READ 1984 or are you just one of the guys who talk about it? Summaries and excerpts aren't enough to appreciate the full scale of what Orwell was saying and what the book relates was hardly a shadow of the horrors of Stalinism where smoking and seatbelts were the least of people's concerns. Big Brother, and Stalin, didn't do things to protect the people, they kept the people in a constant state of fear to maintain control and so the people wouldn't realize their "protector" was actually their persecutor. Read 1984, Koba the Dread, Beria, The Ghulag Archipeligo or just read reviews at Amazon...............................

BTW I have a 19 year old near-quadriplegic step sister who would be fully functional today had she listened to "Big Brother"


----------



## Thillium (Jan 14, 2008)

Mad Hatter said:


> Have you READ 1984 or are you just one of the guys who talk about it? Summaries and excerpts aren't enough to appreciate the full scale of what Orwell was saying and what the book relates was hardly a shadow of the horrors of Stalinism where smoking and seatbelts were the least of people's concerns. Big Brother, and Stalin, didn't do things to protect the people, they kept the people in a constant state of fear to maintain control and so the people wouldn't realize their "protector" was actually their persecutor. Read 1984, Koba the Dread, Beria, The Ghulag Archipeligo or just read reviews at Amazon...............................
> 
> BTW I have a 19 year old near-quadriplegic step sister who would be fully functional today had she listened to "Big Brother"


And Animal Farm, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, The Federalist Papers, Common Sense to name a few, my argument is based on I don't need the government to tell me what to do when I realize the consequences of my actions. And in that aspect control my life. And are you one of those guys that makes assumptions about someones argument without fully understanding the points being brought within its structure?


----------



## Mad Hatter (Apr 8, 2007)

Thillium said:


> No offense to anyone of the political mind set but welcome to the new fad of Liberalism/Democratic idealogs, please hand over your rights as a person and continue on towards *1984*.





Mad Hatter said:


> While I agree that Goldstein is out to get us and destroy our way of life these days, I don't think tobacco figures into the scheme. *Perhaps maybe we should look at the anti-smoking wave as a social movement rather than a political movement.*





Thillium said:


> *What about seat belt laws? NH is the only state that doesn't have one I believe. Its big government telling us whats right and wrong when most intelligent people know that its right and wrong*.





Thillium said:


> *I've read the wikipedia article already about 1984,* I was making a joke.[/quote] *But DID YOU READ THE BOOK?* or the books below, for that matter
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Thillium (Jan 14, 2008)

Mad Hatter said:


> Thillium said:
> 
> 
> > *I've read the wikipedia article already about 1984,* I was making a joke.[/quote] *But DID YOU READ THE BOOK?* or the books below, for that matter
> ...


----------



## Pendaboot (Jan 2, 2008)

Mad Hatter said:


> .......
> 
> BTW I have a 19 year old near-quadriplegic step sister who would be fully functional today had she listened to "Big Brother"


Sorry to hear about your step sister, but it is *choice* that Big Brother takes away. Big Brother makes seat belts and motorcycle helmets mandatory so that he can keep his aggregate medical costs down. But it is a least common denominator thing, that takes no account of people's individuality. MC helmets are surely a good thing to have on in case of a collision, but I once had an accident solely because of my helmet restricting my hearing acuity and peripheral vision, and would never have worn it without the mandate of Big Brother. The scientific case can only be made that helmet use should be mandatory for less competent riders, but that would make enforcement difficult, so people have to die, so that politicians can tell the electorate that they *did something* to help the poor helpless public. If you do not feel helpless, tough nougats. And this reasoning transfers directly to pipe and cigar smoking, so we are still on topic here.

And yes, I did read the book.:gn


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Pendaboot said:


> I am told that this forum is no place for politics. But the fact that government is on a roll, infringing on our rights as consumers of a legal product every chance they get, is undeniable. If this is not the place to discuss it then repressive government has won another round against us.


This is not the place for political disscusion. This isn't a free board, it's privately owned and the owner has asked that there be no politics. You are a very new member and seems like all your posts are political in nature. This is a very laid back, friendly place, the reason political disussions are frowned upon is because they always lead to bad mojo.

I could give a flying fark perosnally. I disagree with you on a number of points really, but I reserve my political talk to forums dedicated to such.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Apr 8, 2007)

Yeah, we definitely try to keep a friendly, no politics atmosphere here in the pipe forum. As a matter of fact I reported this thread when it first began to take a political turn, but nothing came of it. I think now it has gotten well into political opinion.

Thanks for the note on my stepsister. It was her choice to decide whether or not to obey the law. She chose not and got thrown from the truck she was riding in. Afterwards the truck was driven home and she was driven to the hospital. Her life. Her choice.


----------



## tfar (Dec 27, 2007)

Let's keep the thread on track, folks. It's just an inspiring topic and I might be to blame in the first place.

Till


----------

